Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.

I would like to thank anotherwolf for creating this debate. With events involving guns becoming more numerous every year, it is important we discuss weapons and gun control.

If I may begin...

As the opposition, negative or "con" in this round it is my burden to prove that the resolution is NOT true.

Pre-Round Analysis: Please disregard any information presented without sourcable evidence as is holds no strength.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790. It is with this quote from one of the greatest men in American history that I stand in opposition to the resolution: "In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned". To analyze this resolution I would like to point out that we are ONLY disscussing private ownership of HANDGUNS. Another resolutional analysis is that we are talking about the US alone. Voters please disregard all arguments that have to do with commwealths, states and countries that are not part of or have not been annexed by the United States of America as of 2015.

Definitions:

Private ownership: Operationally defined as the use or ownership of an object by one person or group of people.

Definitional Analysis: Ought is interchangable with "should" and "should" entails reasons: I should eat the cake because it's my birthday. Therefore mine opponent, the government, affirmative or "pro", must not only uphold his side of the resolution but he must also prove his side and completely wipe away mine analyses.

My value for this round is Human Rights. Human rights are defined as the inherent right to Life, Liberty and Property. Keep these in mind as I go into my arguments. Notes: A value is a worldview that should be used to judge the round. For example I am using Human rights because I think that that is what guns protect.

Contention 1: Guns Uphold Human Rights:

Let us address every one of the human rights individually. Life in correlation to gun control. Let us say someone breaks into your house and runs into your room with a knife. Most likely if you are not trained in martial arts you are probably going to die from punture wounds. However, if you happen to have a gun, you are able to defend yourself. Guns protect the right to life by protecting life itself. When people are disciplined, background checks performed and police enforcement enhanced, guns can protect life.

Guns in relation to liberty. If we look back up to our quote by George Washington (Scroll up) we see that he states that a society that values liberty and freedom above all needs to be able to arm and defend itself from potentional home invasion and government tyranny. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."³ What this sacred ammendment is essentially saying is that it is the right of the citizens of the united states to bear arms to uphold freedom. In fact this year gunsnfreedom.com released an articleS08; that stated how two men had attempted to attack an elderly women in a home invansion. Due to her right to bear arms given to her by the 2nd Amendment she is well to this very day.

Finally guns in relation to property, one of the Human rights. Taking away guns is by its very nature is denying human one of their inherent Human rights, property. Guns protect the other two human rights and in and of themselves count as a basic human right, by our definitions above (See Definitions). Guns can protect against robbery: On June 18 gunsnfreedom.com released another article about guns being used to protect property. When a chainsaw-wielding thief broke and entered a San Antonio home, the armed homeowner was able to save is property and his life by defending himself with a firearm.

Contention 2: Banning Guns Does Not Promote Human Rights:

When you ban weapons or if you make something illegal it immediatly creates a market for that banned product. Because drugs are banned people buy them off the black market and such is one example. If liberals and other politically new idealists succeed at gun control and a handgun ban, you immediatly have the "illegal gun market" created. "...Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter [gun] laws don’t mean there is less crime."S09;. Essentially what their saying is that in studies from the U.S. gun control does not make crime go down. Banning guns still allows people to invade a home with things like knives and be able to attack and kill and steal property from people who, without guns, have no defense. As you see having guns may have a few incidents, but according to guncite.com in an articleS10; over two million instances of gun related self defense occur per year. All in all banning guns does not help save lives, it does not help people protect their property and taking away guns certainly does not give people more freedom. Keeping guns helps save lives! Keepings handguns free to own with licenses and such allows for freedom and democracy, two of the foundational values on which the US was made on.

I will now respond to mine opponent's arguments.

Mine opponent stated that handguns are there to protect the owner from danger and this is correct. Mine opponent essentially agreed with my main point of Human Rights, protecting the owner = protectin his/her life, before I have even given my case. Mine opponent then goes on to say that the first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone wiht his/her gun. I would like to respond to this by saying that a plethora of gun violences have, in fact, been stopped by background checks at gun purchasing centers. To carry a gun around you need a concealed carry license. To get one of those you have to go through too many background checks and investigation to count and you also have to get months of training. The resolution is talking about private hangun ownership, but my opponent is talking about concealed carry. My opponent has not presented any arguments on personal/private ownership. I urge the judge to disregard all arguments thus made by my opponent becuase they do not link in directly and have not been applied to the resolution directly. Lastly my opponent goes on to state that there is no guarrentee that people will not get shot. I would like response by saying that gun ownership and furthermore concealed carry is made to defend the person carrying the gun, as my opponent stated earlier in his/her opening statement. I believe I have given sufficient evidence to prove that my opponents last point, that to reduce crime guns ought to be banned, has no force.

You are absolutely correct my opponent.
People can own handguns because of the Human rights. If you have a stranger in your house with a weapon such as a knife, you can get killed without even fighting. What my opponent said is that guns allow their owners to use them for protection. In this case, guns are necessary. However, think about this. If that stranger in that house had a gun pointing at you, would you still have a chance to shoot him and still be alive? There is only about less than 1% chance that you can shoot the stranger. The cause of this scenario is the law that allows people to have guns.

Handguns depend on how the owner uses it, and in these days, people use them in bad ways.
The ironic part of the law that allows people to own guns is that people are using them in bad ways, and police officers always have a hard time taking control of crimes that include gun shooting.

People who own handguns always say this: People should be able to defend themselves from danger. However, people can use knives or other weapons to protect themselves. Allowing people to own handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger.

In this rebuttal I will respond to my opponents arguments while still supporting mine.

First of all my opponent agreed to my case so the voter should disregard ALL of his/her arguments for the rest of the case. My value convinced even him/her, therefore he cannot make anymore arguments without contradicting himself.

Despite this I am going to respond for the sake of debate.

Every year over 10,000 people die from gun related incidents such as homicide. Did you know, however, that because of the ability to use firearms in self defense over 2.5 million people are protected form potential murderers, thieves and muggers? My opponent used a generic situation for his argument against my case (Refer to Round 2, 1st post). Over 71% of all gun related shooting are between two previously convicted felons out for blood. Only 29% of gun related shooting victims do not know their attacker. This leads into my main theme for this rebuttal: It is not the gun that shoots the person it is the person that pulls the trigger. This theme promotes my value of Human Rights in two key ways. First it upholds the value because when guns are used in the right way, when the person behind the trigger is using the weapons to help others (Stopping a thief) or to defend themselves we can see how guns, with the right intent, can be used to uphold human rights. The second key factor in my theme is that if you look at the figures objectively, guns are used more for good than for evil. Take what I said earlier, 2.5 million people are protected from potential crimes because of their guns. They were able to uphold human rights because they had a good intent when they used the gun. I would like some evidence on the "There is only about less than 1% chance that yo can shoot the stranger" phrase my opponent used because after looking I could not find any credible sources for the information.

In my opponents second argument he basically states my theme: That the intent of the shooter dictates the aftermath. I believe that the evidence referring to the 2.5 million crimes stopped is sufficient rebuttal enough to not only refute my opponents second argument but also prove them wrong. My opponent states that police officers have a hard time controlling guns, and I would like to respond by saying that it is the police officer's job to control criminals. Just because you ban ownership of guns held by the average person does not mean that gang gunfights, drug dealer gunfights and other types of shooting that already use stolen guns are going to stop.

In my opponents third argument they state that "having handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger." I have two responses to this. First I would like to once again bring up my evidence of 2.5 million crimes are stopped using gun defense each year. Secondly I would like to say that have you ever heard the term "don't bring a knife to a gun fight."? I think that it is common knowledge that shooting a gun at someone will be able to stop them before they manage to get so close they can stab you.

Overall my opponents arguments have been refuted, and though he did put up some good points I urge the voter to vote for the con, the side in opposition to the resolution: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

If any one wants evidence just comment or reply to my post. I did not make a bibliography this time around because of the low amount of citing I did but I need to let you know that if you want evidence I need to provide you with a credible source(s).

Reasons for voting decision: Prior position: I am torn on this issue. There are beneficial and harmful effects for both Pro and Con sides.
Analysis: Con has slightly bad grammar (incorrect placement or missing commas, women -> woman, etc). Con is first person I have read on this site to correctly quote the 2nd Amendment. Con is the only side that provided sources. Pro accepts Cons argument in Round 2.
Overall: Con made one really good point that I have never considered before. Thank you Con.
ps. What's with 180 day voting period?

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.